dolo amber
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Apr-03-05 10:31 AM
Original message |
I have a question...why is there no assistant/co-/Vice Pope? |
|
I know virtually nothing about Catholicism outside of the very basics, and I remember when JPI died wondering this as well. I mean, I know the Pope has to be appointed and it's a pretty in-depth process, but shouldn't there be someone there to sort of take over the position in the interim?
Just curious...thanks! :hi:
|
Cuban_Liberal
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Apr-03-05 02:24 PM
Response to Original message |
1. It's really not neccessary, dolo. |
|
Edited on Sun Apr-03-05 02:24 PM by Cuban_Liberal
The Vatican bureaucracy pretty much runs on its own, and the Camerlengo is basically a 'caretaker' executive in the interregnum between Popes. In terms of the day-to-day operations of the Church, the Pope has very little hands-on involvement.
Hope that clears it up.
:)
|
IronLionZion
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Apr-03-05 02:31 PM
Response to Original message |
2. The Pope now a days is basically a figure head |
|
John Paul II chose to travel around the world giving hope to people. I suppose that's OK.
The Camerlengo can take over during the interim and the other top Cardinals do the day to day running of things anyway so its not a problem.
|
Matilda
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Apr-04-05 08:16 AM
Response to Reply #2 |
4. Not entirely a figurehead. |
|
The Pope is the final arbiter of Church doctrine and policy, and individual popes definitely put their personal stamp on the papacy.
|
dolo amber
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Apr-03-05 02:58 PM
Response to Original message |
|
The Pope is in more of an advisory role than a directly administrative one...something like that?
That makes sense, then. Thanks again! :hi:
|
ChavezSpeakstheTruth
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Apr-04-05 10:16 AM
Response to Reply #3 |
5. Plus Dookus's toenail is off |
DemBones DemBones
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Apr-14-05 06:14 PM
Response to Original message |
6. I think the real reason is |
|
that Jesus put Peter in charge -- not Peter and another disciple. Peter was the first Pope. The Church has changed a lot since Peter's time so as it's gotten larger, it has developed an organization to keep things running, as the other posters already pointed out. The Pope is the head of the Church and he has a considerable amount of power but he depends on the work of a lot of others, too. For example, in order for him to decide who to name as a new bishop, or archbishop, or cardinal -- and the Pope appoints every single bishop, archbishop, and cardinal in the world -- he surely has information on all likely candidates prepared for him by some Vatican staffers.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Wed May 01st 2024, 03:51 PM
Response to Original message |